Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

Very informative, thanks

Too bad that the very informative info of @Lazarus Short is refuted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud quoted in my post [#516] above.

 

[Hmm]

Too bad that the very informative info of @Lazarus Short is refuted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud quoted in my post [#516] above.

Whatever makes you happy

 

[Der Alte]

Whatever makes you happy

Documented historical truth makes you unhappy?

 

[Hmm]

Documented historical truth makes you unhappy?

Again, you're identifing truth with your interpretation of it. Documents have to be interpreted.

 

[Saint Steven]

Again, you're identifing truth with your interpretation of it. Documents have to be interpreted.

Some posters like to call their opinion "the Word of God".
("Disagree with me and you can take it up with God")

 

[Hmm]

Some posters like to call their opinion "the Word of God".
("Disagree with me and you can take it up with God")

Indeed. And saying that interpretation.is unavoidable is not saying that truth is relative in the sense that everyone's opinion is therefore equally valid. There is informed interpretation and misinformed or unguided interpretation. We can't and aren't meant to work it all out for ourselves because church is a community. So who do we listen to? For me, it's reputable scholars, and of course their findings are always changing and developing, and people IRL and in virtual life like this forum who reflect politeness, rationality and a loving regard for others. This excludes, on the ground of rationality, anyone who claims that they speak for God!

 

[Saint Steven]

Indeed. And saying that interpretation.is unavoidable is not saying that truth is relative in the sense that everyone's opinion is therefore equally valid. There is informed interpretation and misinformed or unguided interpretation. We can't and aren't meant to work it all out for ourselves because church is a community. So who do we listen to? For me, it's reputable scholars, and of course their findings are always changing and developing, and people IRL and in virtual life like this forum who reflect politeness, rationality and a loving regard for others. This excludes, on the ground of rationality, anyone who claims that they speak for God!

Right. Having an opinion isn't the problem.
The problem is when someone tries to "win" the discussion by pretending they are God's mouthpiece. If they are going to do that, they shouldn't forget to add the "Thus saith the Lord." at the end.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

For me I do not like it because it is a false teaching that is leading many away from God and His Word and is not biblical being a false interpretation of the scripture that repeats the very first lie told in the garden of Eden to Eve in Genesis 3:1-5 that you can break Gods' commandments and not surely die when the bible teaches that the wages of sin is death to all those who reject the gift of God's dear son and count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing *Romans 6:23; Hebrews 10:26-31. Universalism therefore is the opposite of what the scriptures teach. For me therefore I do not like that it is a false teaching leading many away from God and His Word.

Take Care all.

 

[Hmm]

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

It is not biblical and a false interpretation of the scripture that repeats the first lie told in the garden of Eden to Eve in Genesis 3:1-5 that you can break Gods' commandments and not surely die. This of course is not what the scriptures teach. For me therefore I do not like that it is a false teaching.

Take Care.

Thanks, take care dude.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Thanks, take care dude.

Your welcome

 

[Der Alte]

Again, you're identifing truth with your interpretation of it. Documents have to be interpreted.

All the sources I quoted were written in English. If a country boy from Oklahoma can understand it you should be able to. I also provided links to my sources.
And OBTW the truth I was referring to was the Jewish belief in a place of eternal fiery punishment which they called sheol and Ge Hinnom, and which are translated as hades and Gehenna in both the 225bc LXX and the NT. All of which dispels the internet myth that hell in the Bible originated with Greek mythology and/or Dantes inferno. FYI Dante wrote "Inferno" in the 14th century about 16 centuries after the LXX.

 

[Hmm]

If a country boy from Oklahoma can understand it you should be able to.

See my ref. to politeness a couple of posts ago.

 

[zoidar]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?

You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?

Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?

It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.

These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

If it is true then no problem. If it's false, people that could have been saved, may end up not be because of it. That's the core issue.

 

[Hillsage]

However, I in no way mitigate, but rather extol, their faithfulness in preserving so much NT Christological doctrine through all that siege of false doctrine in centuries past, and they have the battle scars to prove it (i.e., transubstantiation, real presence). So we definitely "owe" them for the faith delivered to the 15th century.

You 'maybe', are taking a higher road than me, I admit. I do know that Jesus spoke pretty harshly against those religious leaders who 'thought more highly of themselves' and their false doctrine 'than they should have' in His day.

Granted, I'm not Jesus, but I have no qualms, at this point, about waiting until the day of my judgment for His opinion as to whether I'm right or wrong.

Infant baptism was practiced in the NT church (Acts 16:15, 33), but not as regeneration.
It was seen in the light of circumcision, as entrance into the (new) covenant (Colossians 2:11-12), making them a part of God's people and partaking in their earthly benefits of protection and provision, personally receiving its spiritual promises only through faith.

I was told part of 'your position above', growing up in 'The Church'. But I think they/you take too much liberty with those scriptures to prove infant baptizing.

IOW CONTEXT CONTEXT IMO

ACT 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, with her household,

I have to assume that the Lord opened the heart of her family to also "give heed to what was said". And to do that her family had to also 'assumedly' be of an age beyond infancy to also understand and 'give heed'.

Acts 16:30 and brought them out and said, "Men, what must I do to be saved?"
31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Once again I have to believe that the jailers family had to "Believe in the Lord Jesus" to be saved. The jailer and his 'of age' family which were all capable of "Believing in the Lord Jesus". For me that is the only position I can accept that lines up with the rest of scripture and prerequisites for baptism.

COL 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I'm not sure I'm following your use of this passage Clare. I believe that "real circumcision is a matter of the heart" and the "baptism of death" both contain a cognitive and spiritual encounter with the heart.

Your thoughts, on my 'opinion' and biblical support for that 'opinion', would be?

 

[Hmm]

If it is true then no problem. If it's false, people that could have been saved, may end up not be because of it.

But if our salvation depends on getting our theology right and our punishment if we don't is ECT, what does that say about God? Where would Jesus be in such a tyrant?

 

[Der Alte]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God? * * *

What annoys me is it is not scriptural. There is not one verse of scripture which clearly states that all mankind will be saved, the righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death or words to that effect.

 

[zoidar]

But if our salvation depends on getting our theology right and our punishment if we don't is ECT, what does that say about God?

We don't need to get everything right theologically. But if some errors in theology is an obstacle to salvation, what does that say about God? That God is loving and just? I would say so.

ECT I won't go into here.

 

[Hmm]

We don't need to get everything right theologically. But if some errors in theology is an obstacle to salvation, what does that say about God? That God is loving and just? I would say so.

ECT I won't go into here.

Good question and I don't know but I believe God will ultimately judge us by our hearts and whether we sincerely tried to carry out his two great commandments.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Too bad that the very informative info of @Lazarus Short is refuted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud quoted in my post [#516] above.

Der Alte, I do not generally read your posts, and I have NO regard for those three Jewish sources. I do see that you did not call them "irrefutable" like you did in the past. Maybe you will again, or maybe you're making progress. I understand the appeal of scholarship, but remember that those sources come from a culture that is stuck at the "eye for an eye" level, and Jesus the Christ often pointed out their errors.

Why do you support a position regarding ancient belief, based on documents written many centuries later?

 

[Der Alte]

Why? More to the point, why do you say it so readily. Further, which Bible? I have at least three versions in my library which do not mention "hell." So I can say that Hell and ECT are un-Biblical. Saying "not biblical" assumes that the Bible, the Church and theology are monolithic, but none of them are.

To me versions are irrelevant. I have Hebrew and Greek grammars and lexicons. I can look up the complete definition of any word anyone calls into question.
How about this. Hebrew has been the language of the Jews for quite a few thousand years. Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox for more than 2000 years at least. If all those "biased" versions don't suit you for Hebrew why not use the 1917 Jewish Publication Society [JPS] translation.
For Greek the Eastern Greek Orthodox [EOB] translation.
Both are available free online.
http://fortsmithorthodox.org/NEW TESTAMENT.pdf
Jewish Bible (JPS 1917)